Share something pointless about your life!

[Obnoxious]

Let's say you have two good players. But when they play against each other player B always loses to player A. Then player B is a bad player by your definition since all he does is lose when playing player A, when they are actually a good player. Bam, proof by contradiction that you are wrong. inb4 "you can't prove something like that" Well then, all of mathematics would break apart and we wouldn't have any proofs left. It's a very basic form of proving something.


Good and bad are relative to the skill levels you are playing against. Players with the exact same skill level will have the same win/lose rate.

I suppose if you fail at comprehending my definition you could say that.

[Link]

I suppose if you fail at comprehending my definition you could say that.

Let's go back to it
"Losing doesn't makes you bad, unless that's all you do"
Player B always loses, by your definition it means he is bad.
"There are good players, who win consistently, and bad players, who lose consistently."
Player A wins consistently so he is a good player. Player B loses consistently so he is a bad player.
" If two good players go against each other multiple times, they might share an equal amount of wins and loses. "
This part has nothing to do with it.
"Your skill isn't relative to who you fight against, it's absolute"
This gives my proof any ground at all, since you say it's absolute. We assume player A and player B are both good, but player A is better then by your definition player B is bad. But player B can't be bad since he is good. If they both cannot be good, then it is relative. But you say it's not relative.

I suppose you can't comprehend what you write and just make stuff up, but this is a known fact about when you argue with people.

[Obnoxious]

No, I won't assume a player who only ever plays against one single other player and always loses is good.

But hey, 10/10 failed white knighting.

[Link]

No, I won't assume a player who only ever plays against one single other player and always loses is good.

But hey, 10/10 failed white knighting.

That is how a proof by contradiction works. If you won't assume this and then you can feel free to disregard every mathematical proof as some of the very base proofs are formed this way and proofs build on each other. You can't just throw it out the ****ing window because you feel like it. But that's what you do. Also, he has to play against other players to be considered good. But when he plays against this one player he always loses, then in this scenario he is a bad player. But he is a good player, which is impossible.

I'm not white knighting, i just despise you and you are wrong. And you hate being told that you are wrong.

[Obnoxious]

No, that's how fallacies work. You're forcing an assumption to prove a point.

If I go "let's assume all of Link's posts are stupid, therefore he's a ******," would you reply by "guess I am a ******"?
Leaving aside whether your posts are stupid or not, that assumption is based on what? What gives it weight? What was the sample? What was the sample put against? What makes that assumption valid in any way besides a fallacy to prove a point that couldn't be made without it?

Also, he has to play against other players to be considered good. But when he plays against this one player he always loses, then in this scenario he is a bad player. But he is a good player, which is impossible.

There's nothing impossible about it. I'm the one advocating that being a good player doesn't means not losing. Losing just means you are worst than that specific person, while you can still be good. Consistently losing to ONE player isn't consistently losing always - unless you only ever play that one player and have never ever won, but then what's the basis to say you're good, just "assuming to pull a point out of the ***"?

[Link]

No, that's how fallacies work. You're forcing an assumption to prove a point.

If I go "let's assume all of Link's posts are stupid, therefore he's a ******," would you reply by "guess I am a ******"?
Leaving aside whether your posts are stupid or not, that assumption is based on what? What gives it weight? What was the sample? What was the sample put against? What makes that assumption valid in any way besides a fallacy to prove a point that couldn't be made without it?

You clearly do not know how a proof by contradiction works, or proofs in general because
1. That is a subjective thing, so you cannot prove it
2. I can contradict that to prove that it is false

you claimed that being good or bad is an is an absolute thing, when it is not. Proofs are found invalid by finding ONE example where it is false. You can make any claim but to prove it you have to prove EVERY occurrence. And it's not a fallacy, until they faced each other both were good players and still are good players on the grand scale but in the specific scenario, by your definition one has to be bad because he always loses. But they were considered good players

[Obnoxious]

You're not contradicting anything, just ignoring the meaning of absolute.
Absolute encompasses all the samples. You can't single out one example engineered to make it be false to disprove it. It's meaningless as far as the absolute sum of all samples go. You're only proving that if THAT example was the absolute sum of all experience that player had, he would be a bad player. By my definition, a specific scenario doesn't changes the absolute value, unless that specific scenario is the absolute value. One player being worse than one specific player won't change the absolute value of that player's skills if that player is good overall against other players.

[Link]

You're not contradicting anything, just ignoring the meaning of absolute.
Absolute encompasses all the samples. You can't single out one example engineered to make it be false to disprove it. It's meaningless as far as the absolute sum of all samples go. You're only proving that if THAT example was the absolute sum of all experience that player had, he would be a bad player. By my definition, a specific scenario doesn't changes the absolute value, unless that specific scenario is the absolute value. One player being worse than one specific player won't change the absolute value of that player's skills if that player is good overall against other players.

There's nothing impossible about it. I'm the one advocating that being a good player doesn't means not losing. Losing just means you are worst than that specific person, while you can still be good. Consistently losing to ONE player isn't consistently losing always - unless you only ever play that one player and have never ever won, but then what's the basis to say you're good, just "assuming to pull a point out of the ***"?

worse*

In the scope of that one person, they are a bad player. I gave a very specific example, but let's expand my example from players to LoL rankings. A silver 3 wins consistently, about 50% of the time because that's what the rankings are for. Hey, what's this? Winning and losing consistently! What you said happens when two good players play against each other. Which means he's a good player. But then a plat 3 comes around and then is the silver 3 still a good player? Well no, because the plat 3 will destroy them every time. Then that silver 3 isn't a good player, but basing it off of consistently winning says he is a good player. And now we're back to winning and losing being relative to rank, since you are basing it off of win/loss ratio and not MMR. A challenger will still have a 50-50 win/loss ratio, which means they are good according to your definition. And then a silver 1 shares the same ratio. Is that silver 1 a good player? Well relative to his skill group yes, but relative to the larger picture he is not. Then what if the silver 1 only gets matched against challengers? His win/loss ratio will be very swayed toward loses, which means he is a bad player. But we just said he was a good player because of what he does against people his rank. Good players have a high MMR and bad players have a low MMR. Which is relative. They have a system in place to determine these things already by finding a number to match people that are relatively the same. I used the specific people to avoid having to go into ranks, but since you don't accept that, have this.

[Obnoxious]

I have no idea what those metals mean on that game.
But either way, if you reduce the sample from absolute to a restricted group you'll have someone that is overall, in absolute a mediocre or even bad player turn into a good player if you put it against people who are worse than him. If you reduce it enough, you can claim that player is the best in the world, as long as you make the sample restricted to only people who have skills inferior to him. Still, in the big scope, which is what I care about, he's still a mediocre or bad player. He just has a lot of people who are even worse than him around. His absolute skills don't change because you restrict the group to make him look better or worse, you just get a biased result.

[Link]

I have no idea what those metals mean on that game.
But either way, if you reduce the sample from absolute to a restricted group you'll have someone that is overall, in absolute a mediocre or even bad player turn into a good player if you put it against people who are worse than him. If you reduce it enough, you can claim that player is the best in the world, as long as you make the sample restricted to only people who have skills inferior to him. Still, in the big scope, which is what I care about, he's still a mediocre or bad player. He just has a lot of people who are even worse than him around. His absolute skills don't change because you restrict the group to make him look better or worse, you just get a biased result.

you are basing whether someone is good or bad against their win/lose ratio. Which is relative to who they play. But you said being good or bad is not relative. So which is it? How can you know a silver 1 (which is a really low rank) is bad if all they play is people relative to their skill and are defined as a good player? How can you test if he is a bad or mediocre player when he never sees a much better player? How you defined good/bad is relative to their skill level. With your definition, everyone is a good player. Games like LoL and CSGO base your rank on your personal performance, not your win/loss ratio for a reason. It's a much much more complex mathematical equation than "He won three games, rank him up"

[Obnoxious]

No, I'm basing it on their absolute skill, which is reflected on their wins under normal circumstances.
If they never play against a higher rank, I don't have a good enough sample to declare them good or bad, much like in the case of someone who always played with just one player. It can be inferred, though, that by only playing people with low skills, his own are limited, something somewhat like a one-trick-pony, who when put against someone better doing something they don't know, loses, and their inferior skills become visible. They can be "good against people worse than him," but that doesn't makes him necessarily a good player. He would have to play against actual good players to see how far up the skill ladder he could go.

The person who said "if you're good, you win, if you're bad, you lose" was yuma, not I. I was the one who said that isn't true and that a good player can still lose to another good player and not become "bad" because of it. His skills are just worse than or "not as good" as the other player's.

[toniplavna]

Hohohoohohohohoh some early mornin fight

[Davelan]

That's illidan cat form o.o illidari demon hunter druid spin-off spec confirmed

[Adeptis]

By this logic, if I had an identical twin, and her nose was slightly crooked, she'd be ugly.

Spoiler: Show

Unless you're into slightly crooked noses. I guess.

Kemi confirmed ugly cos crooked nose..

[Djokula]

Im so sleepy but i have to be at work QQ